# Is the universe real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594 "2005-02-23T22:15:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/41 "2005-02-24T01:34:23Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Just FYI, I don’t believe in the number 4. Oh yeah? If there’s no number 4, then what’s between 3 and 5? Got you there, didn’t I? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/42 "2005-02-24T01:41:55Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Go ahead. I have a couple of hours to kill. OK, here goes. First of all, I claim that mathematical ideas EXIST in some separate fashion external from the human brain. If no human had ever been born, 7 would still be a prime number. If Fermat had never written it down and Andrew Wiles had never proven it, his last theorem would still be true, and would be discoverable by Alien Space Bats from Beyond the Moon. Secondly, I believe (and this is an issue on which I might be proven either wrong or right by further advances in Quantum Mechanics, etc.) that the universe has a fundamentally mathematical foundation. At some level down below subatomic particles, I believe there are rules that govern what happens. Note that these don’t need to be strictly deterministic rules, they can be random rules, ie, when a foo quark bumps into a bar quark, they will annihilate each other 15% of the time and bounce off 85% of the time. Thus, someone in an entirely alien universe could imagine our universe’s rules, write them down, and even program an alien-universe-computer to simulate our universe, much as computers in our universe can run Cellular Automota program or generates views of the Mandelbrot Set. Now, one might think “ooh, what if we’re just living in a fake universe being run by such an alien on such a computer. What happens if he turns it off? Or what if two aliens are running the same program at once… does that mean there are two of us?”. But, fun though such ideas are, they’re ultimately meaningless. The Mandelbrot set doesn’t care whether anyone is looking at it or not, it just exists. And every possible outcome of every possible Cellular Automaton is fixed and permanent and exists, regardless of whether anyone is running a computer program to simulate it or not. If the Mandelbrot set had never been imagined by humankind, it would still exist. It’s no different from the number 5, just more complicated. And similarly, our universe is just a more complicated Mandelbrot set. Sure, it’s constantly splitting into parallel universes whenever quantum interactions occur (if our current understanding is even remotely correct), but there are still only a finite (although friggin’ huge) number of those parallel universes, and the collection as a whole is still really no different from one big cellular automaton. Or, to look at it another way, it’s certainly real to US, and what other standard would we care about? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/43 "2005-02-24T01:42:56Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > “Someone somewhere went to sleep and dreamed us all alive. > Dreams get kicked around a lot and i doubt if we’ll survive. > We won’t get to wake up, dreams were made to dissapear, > and i’m pretty sure that none of us are here.” > > 🙂 I like it - but in line one, it’s someone dreaming us. In line three it seems to be us dreaming. Your poem? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/44 "2005-02-24T01:44:19Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > Could be interesting, so please, go for it. > > Just FYI, I don’t believe in the number 4. Well, it doesn’t believe in YOU, either. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/45 "2005-02-24T01:52:40Z")
If the universe is not real, then whatever my mind is has gone through a remarkably convoluted and ultimately rather pointless effort to convince “me” that I “fell” and “broke” my “arm” last “Wednesday”. Or maybe it’s **Liberal’s** mindlike whatsis generating all this. If so, would you mind canning the philosophy and get on to imagining me doing the nasty with a pair of strippers? _bangs “cast” on “desk” for emphasis_ Gotta say, impressive sim, though. The level of detail is astounding. Too bad there’s not even one undo level… > [@](#): > > Oh yeah? If there’s no number 4, then what’s between 3 and 5? Got you there, didn’t I? Hah, too easy. Twice whatever’s between 2 and 3, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Train\_Song](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4da419/32.png) [@Black\_Train\_Song](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Black_Train_Song)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/46 "2005-02-24T02:05:43Z")
> [@](#): > > But if it is composed of things that aren’t real, as Heisenberg suggests, then how is it real as a whole. A human is made up of (real or not) atoms, which themselves aren’t alive. But combined they can assemble to make a living thing. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/47 "2005-02-24T02:06:28Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > I like it - but in line one, it’s someone dreaming us. In line three it seems to be us dreaming. Your poem? No, it was a verse from a poem written by a man I cannot recall the name of, which was set to music and performed as a song by Jimmy Buffett back before he became a household word. I found it so evocative that I memorized it. I see your point about the difference, but if we’re dreamed up by a dreamer, then our dreams are merely the dreams of dreams dreamed by a dreamer… solipsism taken to the Nth degree. Not only is nothing else real, but even we who dream that it is, aren’t either. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/48 "2005-02-24T02:10:35Z")
> [@Rooves](#): > > A human is made up of (real or not) atoms, which themselves aren’t alive. But combined they can assemble to make a living thing. The analogy doesn’t really work, as “living” is hardly an absolute. It’s merely a certain kind of activity that we have chosen to distinguish from all other kinds of activity. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/49 "2005-02-24T02:18:32Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Not only is nothing else real, but even we who dream that it is, aren’t either. Wasted, away again . . . ---
**Author:** ![Nunavut\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e95f7d/32.png) [@Nunavut\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nunavut_Boy)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/50 "2005-02-24T02:35:42Z")
Something that may be pertinent to this discussion (or maybe not) is a link that **SentientMeat** usually posts: [The Simulation Argument](http://www.simulation-argument.com) . It is quite interesting and I encourage you all to read it. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/51 "2005-02-24T03:07:29Z")
Liberal, I think I have a proof here that may just do the trick, check it out! Prove U (The Universe exists in actuality) Definition Let U = ontological perfection (this was the tough part of my scan and replace, wasn’t quite sure if I should just remove the definition entirely and hope you didn’t notice) Argument 1. ~~U (It is possible that The Universe exists) Induction 2. (U -\> U) (It must be the case that if The Universe exists, then He is the Supreme Being) From the definition of The Universe 1. ~U -\> ~U (If it is not the case that The Universe must exist, then it is necessarily the case that The Universe does not necessarily exist) Reductio ad absurdum by Becker’s Postulate, i.e., necessity obtains 1. U -\> U (If it is necessary that The Universe exists, then He exists in actuality) Modal Axiom 2. U v ~U (Either it is necessary that The Universe exists, or else it isn’t) Law of Excluded Middle 3. U v ~U (Either it is necessary that The Universe exists, or else it is necessary that The Universe does not necessarily exist) Substitution from 3 and 5 1. ~U -\> ~U (If it must be the case that The Universe’s existence is not necessary, then it must be the case that The Universe does not exist) Modal modus tollens from 2 1. U v ~U (Either it is necessary that The Universe exists, or else it is necessary that it does not) Substitution from 6 and 7 1. U (It is necessary that The Universe exists) Disjunctive syllogism on 7 and 1 Conclusion 1. U (The Universe exists in actuality) Modus ponens from 4 and 9 ---
**Author:** ![ninetypercent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9de0a6/32.png) [@ninetypercent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ninetypercent)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/52 "2005-02-24T03:59:34Z")
The universe _cannot_ be objectively real. I can’t prove I exist, let alone anyone else. This fact seems so blatantly obvious to me, that I sometimes get frustrated trying to explain it to people. Actually, I don’t really try to, except on the Internet. The problem is that every single word is linked to multiple assumptions about the nature of existence. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. A person either accepts that they exist, along with other minds, or they go insane. Intellectually, I believe that there is no difference between “my” mind and “your” mind. Viscerally, I still cling to those distinctions. I have learned that forcing those two viewpoints to be compatible is not necessary, and that the desire to do so must be based on some other primordial assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/53 "2005-02-24T04:00:05Z")
Define perfection. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/54 "2005-02-24T04:02:57Z")
He did. He called U the universe and said U=ontological perfection. Its a parody (?maybe) of Liberal’s argument for the proof of god except that he designated the universe as ontological perfection instead of god. ---
**Author:** ![OliverTwistofLime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/b487fb/32.png) [@OliverTwistofLime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverTwistofLime)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/55 "2005-02-24T05:05:43Z")
Unitil all knowledge that exists is learned by human beings or derivations thereof, how can any of say or prove with certainty whether the universe is real or not. None of us actually know how the universe began…so all we can do is use what is available to us now which is not proof either way. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/56 "2005-02-24T05:14:50Z")
> [@treis](#): > > He did. He called U the universe and said U=ontological perfection. > > Its a parody (?maybe) of Liberal’s argument for the proof of god except that he designated the universe as ontological perfection instead of god. “Everything” seems like a meaninglessly broad definition. If parody, fine. If not, I would think “perfection” must be something less than everything, or it’s imperfection as well. Either that, or perhaps one must assert imperfection does not exist to make the definition meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/57 "2005-02-24T05:21:56Z")
If you ask me the whole thing is bullocks becuase there is nothing that can be considered a perfect being. Assuming a perfect being’s definition of perfect in every aspect we run into a contradiction. Premise 1: A perfect being is perfect in every aspect Premise 2: The perfect NFL offensive tackle is over 200 pounds. Premise 3: The perfect jockey is less than 150 pounds. Premise 1 + 2 gets you A perfect being is over 200 pounds (its a perfect offensive tackle). Adding that to premise there you get A perfect being is over 200 pounds and less than 150 pounds. Clearly this is not possible therefore one of our premises is wrong. Premise 2 and 3 are correct therefore the first premise is incorrect ergo there are no perfect beings. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/58 "2005-02-24T05:29:08Z")
treis is correct. Just having some fun. It seems like the best argument for the universe being real (whatever that means) is that we are having this conversation. In other words, something exists. ---
**Author:** ![Washoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecae2f/32.png) [@Washoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Washoe)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/59 "2005-02-24T05:32:50Z")
When the OP asked if the universe is real, could his question have been rephrased ‘is matter something’? Well, it is something—I can see it all around me and touch it. Moreover, I appear to be made out of the same stuff. But every theory of cosmology that I’ve ever heard holds that matter is incomprehensibly dilute. I was taught that prior to the Big Bang, the entire universe was compressed down to an object smaller than a proton, and that the universe is a flat disc of some sort floating in 4-dimensional space, and that relative to 4-dimensional space 3-dimensional objects have zero mass. I’ve never been able to comprehend this, and I doubt I ever will be. So what does all this stuff about matter and energy being ‘probabilities’ mean? Can anybody explain this to me, or point to a web page which can explain it to me at the ‘see Spot run’ level? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/60 "2005-02-24T06:01:24Z")
Our description of how matter behaves at the molecular level and smaller is probabilistic. Basically, you can run the same experiment twice and get two different results, even if your initial conditions are the same. This is not to say matter or energy _is_ probability, just that its behavior is fundamentally indeterministic. It’s an incredibly weird concept. This implies (and observations confirm) that effects can have no causes (though NOT visa versa). Stuff just happens for no reason, because it can. Odds might be even that a particular kind of nucleus will decay by emitting an alpha particle in a given time (the half life of that sort of nucleus); but for each individual nucleus you observe, you might wait only a minute, or a million years, for it to decay. Why? What causes a nucleus to “choose” to decay at any given time? The answer is nothing, so far as we know. There’s just a chance it may or may not happen. Same goes for all kinds of other sub-microscopic phenomena. What we observe with our bare senses is a kind of smeared-out average of all of this randomness, giving us the illusion that things behave deterministically. But ultimately they don’t; it’s an illusion we harbor under because our bare senses are not refined enough to perceive things on such tiny length and time scales as would make quantum phenomena obvious. Our minds are probably evolved to readily intepret only what we perceive, which is a rather crude approximation of what is. That’s why the quantum description of nature seems so bizarrre. So does Relativity, because we never naturally encounter such massively energetic phenomena that would make relativistic sensibilities anything but a needless level of complexity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=4)